Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 14: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that the grant of bail in a criminal case does not immunise an accused from preventive detention under the Public Safety Act if the competent authority finds his activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary made the observation while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by Mohammad Rizwan of Gurian, Kishtwar, through his father Altaf Hussain, challenging the detention order passed against him by the District Magistrate, Kishtwar, on July 21, 2025.
The petitioner had been detained under Section 8(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Tayyab Javed Qureshi contended that the detention order had neither been approved nor confirmed by the Government within the period prescribed under the Act. He further argued that the detainee had not been supplied the complete material relied upon by the detaining authority and that the documents had not been explained to him in a language understood by him.
It was also argued that the detainee had not been informed of his right to make a representation against the detention order. The petitioner further claimed that since he had already been granted bail in FIR No. 05 of 2025, the authorities could not subsequently place him under preventive detention.
Government Advocate Adarsh Bhagat, representing the Union Territory administration, opposed the petition and submitted that the detention order had been passed after considering the police dossier and other material placed before the District Magistrate.
After examining the detention record, the High Court found that the order dated July 21, 2025, was approved by the Home Department on July 24, 2025, and subsequently confirmed on August 18, 2025. The petitioner's plea regarding delay in approval and confirmation was, therefore, found to be factually incorrect.
The court also noted that 99 leaves, comprising the grounds of detention and the material relied upon by the detaining authority, had been supplied to the detainee against a proper receipt.
The record further showed that the contents of the detention order were read over in English and explained to the detainee in Urdu and Kashmiri, languages understood by him. He had acknowledged receipt of the material by affixing his signatures, the court said.
Rejecting the contention that the detainee was not informed of his right to make a representation, the court observed that the execution report clearly established that he had been apprised of his right to approach the Government against the detention order.
On the effect of bail, Justice Chowdhary held that preventive detention and criminal prosecution operate in different fields. Acquittal or grant of bail in a criminal case does not automatically bar the competent authority from passing a preventive detention order when the person's activities are found prejudicial to public order or the security of the State.
The court noted that the detaining authority was aware of the bail order while arriving at its subjective satisfaction. Therefore, the detention could not be declared illegal merely because the detainee had been enlarged on bail in one of the criminal cases.
Referring to the detention record, the court observed that four FIRs-218/2022, 100/2024, 05/2025 and 20/2025-had been registered against the detainee in connection with alleged theft, burglary and other anti-social activities.
The detaining authority had recorded that the alleged repeated activities caused fear among local residents and the business community and posed a threat to public order and the safety of law-abiding citizens in Kishtwar.
The High Court further held that the scope of judicial review over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is limited. A court cannot sit in appeal over such satisfaction or substitute its own opinion merely because another view may also be possible on the material.
Finding no illegality or procedural violation in the detention process, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the PSA detention order. (JNF) |
